It seems like if your using the human resurrection plan with Lab maniac, angel of glories rise, and Alchemist's Apprentice you may want to protect the lab maniac from instant speed removals.

So far I think one of the better options I have found is Elgaud Shieldmate. Comes in with angel, gives hexproof to the maniac. They can still kill it but now they have to do it before you pop your apprentice, so you won't instalose when you draw a non card.

Now if there was only a human you could put back to the top of the deck from play. You could use Shadow Guildmage and Lightning mauler, but you still need 1 blue mana so it may not be the best option.

In fact, reanimating that angel who returns all human into battlefield nets 24 mana providing you have those playsets of priests, and it dodges all creature hate... but this is surely a very bad idea.

That's... surprisingly not terrible. You'd need to generate 5 mana to flashback Past in Flames, and then some amount of seed mana to start casting your graveyard. So you really just need two Priest of Urabrask to make this particular thing work. You take out the Maniac and Azami, and put in Past in Flames, two Priests, and a win condition like Tendrils. It looks like the dead card package is larger, but it is not irrelevant that the Priests give you an additional body to sac to Informer, Cabal Therapy, or Dread Return. I can see winning hands like these:

(Up to three cards that generate 2B, such as Lotus, Chrome Mox, black card, and ritual, Mana Crypt, a spirit guide, and manamorphose, etc)

Wild cantor is great as you can get it with pact to smooth out mana. If you have Wild Cantors in the deck you could use Angel of Glory's Rise to recur them and then win with Past in Flames -> Tendrils

Wild Cantor is more efficient in this deck than manamorphose because it allows you to cast dark ritual with a singular spirit guide. So you have that synergy going. Past in Flames is just very expensive and you would also have to add 1 priest of gix to the deck as well.

One thing that has crossed my mind is this deck doesn't have to be 60 cards. It can go a few over if those cards mean a better winning condition, or alt wins.

Its just very difficult for me to get behind tendril of agony or goblin charbelcher. Even though this deck is loaded with acceleration, dumping your hand doesn't get the storm count high enough to win with tendrils. In order for a tendrils deck to work, you need to have access to yawgmoth's will. Yag Will doesn't really suit this deck.

I was really excited when I saw these cards, because I really love hermit decks. The issues I'm having is that this deck has all the vulnerabilities of traditional hermit lists, plus the inconsistency and fizzle effect of charbelcher. My list runs 2 claim (with ruby, emerald, lotus, 4 ESG, 4 wild cantor), 2 pact of negation, 4 mental misstep, 4 unmask, 2 duress, 4 cabal therapy - and it's not enough to stop counters. The package is also very small - 3 bridge, 2 narco, sutured ghoul, dread return, dragon breath. With 8 2/3s, 6 1/1s, and 4 2/2s, I get a 32/40 hasted, trampling ghoul, so I don't even need lord of extinction. I actually did like LoE in hermit though, because I could avoid grave hate strategies for a big 5cc beater. Also could run daze and tinker/bsc with crazy blue counter packages of 4 fow, 4 misstep, 4 daze to kill on a turn 1 tinker as well. This new version just seems SO much more vulnerable and less consistent. 2 mana on turn 1 with hermit (or 1 mana, worldly tutor, turn 2 2nd mana, hermit) is way more consistent than 4 mana when you can't play any lands.

Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath

Both dredge and darktimes have maindecked leyline in the past and be assured that if this deck happened they would again.

Siding into Beltcher seems like a bad idea though. Other than grave hate it is still weak against other hate both decks are weak against, hate that is all over the place like force and flusterstorm.

I am not saying no to the deck, I am saying I think someone needs to prove it because it just seems too glass cannon to me.

Agree, but only too an extent. It's still more Belcher than Dredge, because it's all about speed whereas Dredge is more about awkward angles of attack. I doubt that it'll be a huge player in the metagame (at high levels, you just don't really want to trade away skill for randomness), but honestly this seems to be consistent enough that you'd be foolish not to account for it.

Logged

I laugh a great deal because I like to laugh, but everything I say is deadly serious.

The deck has a net 33 power worth of creatures that are possibly in the yard. The only ones that really get knocked out of that equation are 1 Balustrade Spy (which you could sac for dread return or cabal therapy) and any spirit guides you exiled. That's a large room to deal with creatures in play on your opponents board, considering if you are going to win, its going to happen no later than turn 2.

You would have 4 card types in your graveyard. enchantment, sorcery, instant, artifact. So goffy is 4/5 from you and your opponent might have a fetch land in the yard, so its a 5/6 max.

If you haven't settled on Sutured Ghoul Dragon Breath yet then The Mimeoplasm, Lord of Extinction, Triskelion/Murderous Redcap might be a way to get around creature kill and the attack step. Although it is 3 slots in the deck.

I'm using +2 bridge +1 flame-kin zealot, it's 3 cards but has less vulnerabilities than ghoul and I can imprint a bridge and still be effective (one bridge already in deck). I'm also toying around with tinker + blightsteel in the deck, this is great if I need an extra turn to connect with my zombies because blightsteel doesn't get milled (gives me an extra draw).

I'm using +2 bridge +1 flame-kin zealot, it's 3 cards but has less vulnerabilities than ghoul and I can imprint a bridge and still be effective (one bridge already in deck). I'm also toying around with tinker + blightsteel in the deck, this is great if I need an extra turn to connect with my zombies because blightsteel doesn't get milled (gives me an extra draw).

Blightsteel would draw the game out no? It is a replacement effect so you will put it back into your deck during resolution of the mill. You will mill untill the only card left is blightsteel. Then you will endlessly mill blightsteel.

Blightsteel would draw the game out no? It is a replacement effect so you will put it back into your deck during resolution of the mill. You will mill untill the only card left is blightsteel. Then you will endlessly mill blightsteel.

Its similar to having 2 progenitus' in a deck against painterstone.

So that's a bad idea.

That is not the way it works. The trigger for the Gatecrash creatures only happens once - which will put all the cards into your yard and leave Colossus on top, because of colossus's replacement effect. The reason that doesn't happen in painterstone is because the effect repeats based on Gringstone's clause that it should do so if the cards share a color, and so every iteration of the effect is continually looking at the two cards put into the gy, thus creating the loop you mention.

I've been doing alot of work on this archetype, testing and tuning, and I wrote up a free article for Eternal Central that will be published this week with my list and explanations. In my testing, this deck has the fastest goldfish of any Type I/ Vintage deck ever.

Also, what advantages does this version have over the Legacy builds? They dont have moxen, but they do get four Lotus Petals, which seems potentially much better. The big problem for this deck, other than yard hate, seems to be generating the one black it needs to go off consistently.

EDIT - Also, the kill package can be a little smaller. Someone over at the SCG article about this deck in legacy pointed out that all you need to add is Angel of Glory's Rise and Fiend Hunter. This assumes you have a one-of Wild Cantor, which most lists do. Once you go off, you Dread Return the Angel, who brings back all your Informers, Cantor, and Fiend Hunter. Then, you target Angel with the Hunter, and sac Cantor for mana, sac the Fiend Hunter to mill. Angel returns, rinse and repeat. This saves you a card from the Azami kill and doesn't involve an attack step like the Sutured Ghoul kill. It is vulnerable to Emrakul and Gaea's Blessing, however.

Also, what advantages does this version have over the Legacy builds? They dont have moxen, but they do get four Lotus Petals, which seems potentially much better. The big problem for this deck, other than yard hate, seems to be generating the one black it needs to go off consistently.

EDIT - Also, the kill package can be a little smaller. Someone over at the SCG article about this deck in legacy pointed out that all you need to add is Angel of Glory's Rise and Fiend Hunter. This assumes you have a one-of Wild Cantor, which most lists do. Once you go off, you Dread Return the Angel, who brings back all your Informers, Cantor, and Fiend Hunter. Then, you target Angel with the Hunter, and sac Cantor for mana, sac the Fiend Hunter to mill. Angel returns, rinse and repeat. This saves you a card from the Azami kill and doesn't involve an attack step like the Sutured Ghoul kill. It is vulnerable to Emrakul and Gaea's Blessing, however.

Hm, is that vulnerable to Emrakul? Since it's an infinite loop, are you permitted to just say, "I do this until you happen to shuffle it so that the Emrakul(s) is/are the last card(s) in your library" since statistically that will have to happen given infinite iterations? Then they'd just have four cards in their deck, or whatever, all of them useless Emrakuls, then only be able to survive four more draw steps and die.

Also, what advantages does this version have over the Legacy builds? They dont have moxen, but they do get four Lotus Petals, which seems potentially much better. The big problem for this deck, other than yard hate, seems to be generating the one black it needs to go off consistently.

EDIT - Also, the kill package can be a little smaller. Someone over at the SCG article about this deck in legacy pointed out that all you need to add is Angel of Glory's Rise and Fiend Hunter. This assumes you have a one-of Wild Cantor, which most lists do. Once you go off, you Dread Return the Angel, who brings back all your Informers, Cantor, and Fiend Hunter. Then, you target Angel with the Hunter, and sac Cantor for mana, sac the Fiend Hunter to mill. Angel returns, rinse and repeat. This saves you a card from the Azami kill and doesn't involve an attack step like the Sutured Ghoul kill. It is vulnerable to Emrakul and Gaea's Blessing, however.

Hm, is that vulnerable to Emrakul? Since it's an infinite loop, are you permitted to just say, "I do this until you happen to shuffle it so that the Emrakul(s) is/are the last card(s) in your library" since statistically that will have to happen given infinite iterations? Then they'd just have four cards in their deck, or whatever, all of them useless Emrakuls, then only be able to survive four more draw steps and die.

I recall reading somewhere that in a situation like this, where you can cause a random result as many times as you like, you are not allowed to "shortcut" to the exact arrangement you want. Here, that would be one land and however many Emrakuls or Blessings on the bottom of the library in that order.

However, I also believe you can continue to do what you're doing as long as time permits to try and get the result you want. Remember that combo with Chance Encounter and Frenetic Efreet? You can activate the Effreet's ability as many times as you like to flip as many coins as you like, but you have to actually flip the coins.

Realistically, you would go to time shuffling and milling, shuffling and milling. Woudl this be delay of game? There is a non-zero but astoundingly small chance you will shuffle the library in exactly this way, so can't you keep trying to win this way until time is called?

If so, the deck will tie against people with these protections instead of losing to them, which is great. But it will also be supremely terrible to play against, which is not.

EDIT: Assuming perfectly random shuffles, there are 8.3209871e+81 possible arrangements for a sixty card deck (60!). So you're spending, what, thirty seconds or so at a time to try for a chance that is 1 out of 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of occurring? Yea, good luck with that!*

Maybe they will have to introduce a "lower probability bound" into Magic to deal with this situation... ?

* = Actually it's a little less if they have multiple cards that fit the bill. [Any Land] [Emrakul] is an acceptable arrangement. I don't think reducing the chance by a few orders of magnitude is gonna make much difference though.

Also, what advantages does this version have over the Legacy builds? They dont have moxen, but they do get four Lotus Petals, which seems potentially much better. The big problem for this deck, other than yard hate, seems to be generating the one black it needs to go off consistently.

EDIT - Also, the kill package can be a little smaller. Someone over at the SCG article about this deck in legacy pointed out that all you need to add is Angel of Glory's Rise and Fiend Hunter. This assumes you have a one-of Wild Cantor, which most lists do. Once you go off, you Dread Return the Angel, who brings back all your Informers, Cantor, and Fiend Hunter. Then, you target Angel with the Hunter, and sac Cantor for mana, sac the Fiend Hunter to mill. Angel returns, rinse and repeat. This saves you a card from the Azami kill and doesn't involve an attack step like the Sutured Ghoul kill. It is vulnerable to Emrakul and Gaea's Blessing, however.

Hm, is that vulnerable to Emrakul? Since it's an infinite loop, are you permitted to just say, "I do this until you happen to shuffle it so that the Emrakul(s) is/are the last card(s) in your library" since statistically that will have to happen given infinite iterations? Then they'd just have four cards in their deck, or whatever, all of them useless Emrakuls, then only be able to survive four more draw steps and die.

I recall reading somewhere that in a situation like this, where you can cause a random result as many times as you like, you are not allowed to "shortcut" to the exact arrangement you want. Here, that would be one land and however many Emrakuls or Blessings on the bottom of the library in that order.

However, I also believe you can continue to do what you're doing as long as time permits to try and get the result you want. Remember that combo with Chance Encounter and Frenetic Efreet? You can activate the Effreet's ability as many times as you like to flip as many coins as you like, but you have to actually flip the coins.

Realistically, you would go to time shuffling and milling, shuffling and milling. Woudl this be delay of game? There is a non-zero but astoundingly small chance you will shuffle the library in exactly this way, so can't you keep trying to win this way until time is called?

If so, the deck will tie against people with these protections instead of losing to them, which is great. But it will also be supremely terrible to play against, which is not.

Straight from the most recent IPG:

3.3. Tournament Error — Slow PlayDefinitionA player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions. If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Unsporting Conduct — Stalling.It is also slow play if a player continues to execute a loop without being able to provide an exact number of iterations and the expected resulting game state.

This was added in when the Legacy deck the Four Horsemen started seeing play. There was a lot of chatter on the judge forums about it as well. We didn't want to see an archetype nerfed, but we didn't want to have tournaments grind to a stop either. So the policy makers went with this. If you can say "I do this 10 times and it ends up in this state..." then I would probably allow it, but if you can't give me hard numbers then you are probably getting a warning.

"A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions. If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Unsporting Conduct — Stalling."

The combo player is not trying to draw; he or she is trying to win. The chances of doing it are small, but non-zero, so there is no requisite mental state to stall. Except by degree, it's just like not conceding in the hopes that Bob is gonna kill your opponent next turn by revealing the last Force of Will in their deck. I guess unless they say that's what they are doing.

"It is also slow play if a player continues to execute a loop without being able to provide an exact number of iterations and the expected resulting game state."

The resulting game state you want is perfectly clear. What does "exact" mean with respect to the number of tries, though? You can do the math and calculate how many times you will need to repeat the loop, on average, to get the result you want. This, too, seems like a matter of degree. Would you really be guilty of slow play if you knew that it would take you between 2 and 4 loops to get the result you want, but you don't know how many times?

EDIT: And besides that, doesn't this rule only occur if you are trying to short cut the process? How is it a "loop" when you keep changing the state of the enemy's library? If you really needed to escape the definition of "loop," then why not run two Wild Cantors and use a die to randomly choose which one you sacrifice each time you get mana for the Informer? The board state will fluctuate with each iteration without returning to the same predetermined state.

If I were called over to a match and the player stated, I can complete my action in exactly 4 iterations, then I would be inclined to allow it. If the player said I will need between 2 and 4 iterations then I can't allow that as that is not an exact number.

I almost did not bring this up, when this was originally on the judge list there was a lot of heated debate. I understand both perspectives, but when I'm wearing the judge shirt, I am going to enforce policy and rules.

I'll see if I can dig up the judge discussions & if there is something I can quote that makes this clearer.

I get that this is a policy decision more than anything else. What I'm trying to understand is how it works exactly. So, anytime a loop occurs -- even a small one -- I get hit for delay of game if I execute it and indeterminate number of times?

I mean, say there's a way to get into a loop that coin flips and then deals 1 damage to target creature. My target game state is to kill an opposing creature with 3 toughness. I know that it won't take me many more than 3 to 6 loops or so to finish the creature off. Does this rule prevent me from even attempting to shortcut? Does it stop me from just DOING the loop that many times?

Same senario as above, but now it's a coin flip to destroy the creature. So each time I lose the flip, the board state is identical. (This is technically true in the above example, too, I guess). I know it will only take me 1 or 2 loops to kill the creature, but I can't be sure. Does this rule prevent me from shortcutting or doing this?

Under the rule as you put it, aren't' cards like Firey Gambit, Game of Chaos, and Mana Clash just plain illegal? Each of them will loop an indeterminate number of times when you cast it. Or is the fact the outcome of any flip on these cards actually does change the game state important?

If so, what about multiple Cantors in this deck? If I randomly put a different cantor into play from my graveyard, or send cards to the yard in different orders, am I really doing a "loop" since I'm changing the game state?

Without question. that deck wasn't actually that fast. It was mostly a turn 2 deck, although it obviosly had lots of turn 1 kills.

Quote

Steve, will this be a pay-to-read article?

No, free. It's 16 pages and will be up on eternal central tomorrow.;

Quote

Also, what advantages does this version have over the Legacy builds?

Lots actually. The trade offs are actually complex once you delve into them. Legacy gets 4 LEDs and 4 Lotus Petals, but LED forces you into using Living Wish (which is otherwise better in Vintage because you can get Workshop/Cavern/Swamp) to cast Belcher/Spy/Informer, but that shuts you off Pact of Negation.

I've done all of my testing so far in Vintage, so I can't make direct experiential comparisons. My sense is that the Vintage version is more consistent and faster, but the Legacy version may be stronger in the metagame. Chancelor of the Tangle is INSANE in the Legacy version, since you get mana and then can imprint it on a Chrome Mox - getting a 2-for-1. The Vintage hate is also worse for the Vintage version.

I get that this is a policy decision more than anything else. What I'm trying to understand is how it works exactly. So, anytime a loop occurs -- even a small one -- I get hit for delay of game if I execute it and indeterminate number of times?

I mean, say there's a way to get into a loop that coin flips and then deals 1 damage to target creature. My target game state is to kill an opposing creature with 3 toughness. I know that it won't take me many more than 3 to 6 loops or so to finish the creature off. Does this rule prevent me from even attempting to shortcut? Does it stop me from just DOING the loop that many times?

Same senario as above, but now it's a coin flip to destroy the creature. So each time I lose the flip, the board state is identical. (This is technically true in the above example, too, I guess). I know it will only take me 1 or 2 loops to kill the creature, but I can't be sure. Does this rule prevent me from shortcutting or doing this?

Under the rule as you put it, aren't' cards like Firey Gambit, Game of Chaos, and Mana Clash just plain illegal? Each of them will loop an indeterminate number of times when you cast it. Or is the fact the outcome of any flip on these cards actually does change the game state important?

If so, what about multiple Cantors in this deck? If I randomly put a different cantor into play from my graveyard, or send cards to the yard in different orders, am I really doing a "loop" since I'm changing the game state?

I'm going to answer with a tentative, maybe? It all depends on the exact situation. (cop out answer I know)

It's really hard to answer without specifics & being there. Plus, the chances of this kind of inf-loop happening are slim. If it happens in an event I'm judging I'll deal with it then.

I get that this is a policy decision more than anything else. What I'm trying to understand is how it works exactly. So, anytime a loop occurs -- even a small one -- I get hit for delay of game if I execute it and indeterminate number of times?

I mean, say there's a way to get into a loop that coin flips and then deals 1 damage to target creature. My target game state is to kill an opposing creature with 3 toughness. I know that it won't take me many more than 3 to 6 loops or so to finish the creature off. Does this rule prevent me from even attempting to shortcut? Does it stop me from just DOING the loop that many times?

Same senario as above, but now it's a coin flip to destroy the creature. So each time I lose the flip, the board state is identical. (This is technically true in the above example, too, I guess). I know it will only take me 1 or 2 loops to kill the creature, but I can't be sure. Does this rule prevent me from shortcutting or doing this?

Under the rule as you put it, aren't' cards like Firey Gambit, Game of Chaos, and Mana Clash just plain illegal? Each of them will loop an indeterminate number of times when you cast it. Or is the fact the outcome of any flip on these cards actually does change the game state important?

If so, what about multiple Cantors in this deck? If I randomly put a different cantor into play from my graveyard, or send cards to the yard in different orders, am I really doing a "loop" since I'm changing the game state?

I'm going to answer with a tentative, maybe? It all depends on the exact situation. (cop out answer I know)

It's really hard to answer without specifics & being there. Plus, the chances of this kind of inf-loop happening are slim. If it happens in an event I'm judging I'll deal with it then.

I thought of a circumstance where this matters!

Say I've got the following board:

Creepy DollHellkite ChargerNature's Will7+ mana

And the opponent has

2 Wall of DenialBubble Matrix

So, here's my situation. I get to attack as much as I want. I can't kill them in a single swing, because the Walls block my Doll and my Charger. However, each time the Doll hits, I get to flip a coin and see if the Wall dies. I win the flip once, and from there on out I can guarantee a kill. However, this is a loop with an identical game state, and I cannot tell you in advance exactly how many attacks it will take before the Doll kills the Wall and I get in for the kill.

Am I allowed to shortcut this and end the game?

Am I even allowed to repeat the loop until I punch through?

Under the rule as you described it, I am not allowed to do either, it seems, which is bizarre. If I don't flip correct the first time around the loop, I have to stop or get hit with Delay of Game.

EDIT: Argh, this doesn't work because Bubble Matrix stops the Doll's ability. Going to look for a different way to set this up...

So, here's my situation. I get to attack as much as I want. I can't kill them in a single swing, because the Walls block my Doll and my Charger. However, each time the Doll hits, I get to flip a coin and see if the Wall dies. I win the flip once, and from there on out I can guarantee a kill. However, this is a loop with an identical game state, and I cannot tell you in advance exactly how many attacks it will take before the Doll kills the Wall and I get in for the kill.

Am I allowed to shortcut this and end the game?

Am I even allowed to repeat the loop until I punch through?

Under the rule as you described it, I am not allowed to do either, it seems, which is bizarre. If I don't flip correct the first time around the loop, I have to stop or get hit with Delay of Game.

EDIT: Argh, this doesn't work because Bubble Matrix stops the Doll's ability. Going to look for a different way to set this up...

OK, let's pretend that Bubble matrix doesn't stop this.

In this instance, I don't think I would give Slow Play. Here is why:

You could demonstrate one iteration, and if the flip does not go in your favour tell your opponent you will do it 10 more times. At this point you have shown a shortcut to an action in game.

I think that one key difference is that you can't shortcut shuffling your deck. BUT you can shortcut tapping/untapping cards.